14th July 2004, 02:24 PM
14th July 2004, 02:29 PM
Seems there are quite a number user uses Hoya R72. I'm not into infra photography, at least for now.
14th July 2004, 02:33 PM
i used to try it out on my 10D
but the results were not what i expected..
so whenever i shoot infra red.. i either use my pro consumer cam with filter or i go back to film...
i heard tt DsLR is not compatible with infra red
how true.. im not sure
can anyone testify?
14th July 2004, 02:36 PM
14th July 2004, 02:42 PM
Yep. I used my 10D with Hoya R72, but 'spotting' occurs. A lot of them say it's the anti-UV coating on the sensor that causes this problem.
Originally Posted by RuthBaby
14th July 2004, 05:23 PM
I tot IR filter depends on the lens, not the body?
Some lenses are IR sensitive, some are not.
14th July 2004, 09:03 PM
hm. i haven't seen that much stuffs but personally i've a shoot done with one of the photographers using ir filter.. effect was hm..sweet. pm if you wanna see any shots lol.
14th July 2004, 09:09 PM
Actually...IR sensitivity depends a lot on the receiving medium...ie: CCD, CMOS sensors or IR films...the IR filter just filter away most of the other spectrum while still allowing the spectrum containing the IR portion of light thru to the recording medium...
Originally Posted by E-Lim
Most Digicam are sensitive to the IR spectrum...to different extends...I took some with my C5050...results...well...need to post process lor...but I quite happy with it lah...me no expert lah...just sharing what I know...
Here's an example...a lil soft I know...but thats IR photography...
14th July 2004, 11:02 PM
just want to ask. how come the dog is black?
from what i understand, hot subject will turn our white, cold subject will turn out black
a dog as a mammal, is warm blooded, so should not appear black right? not unless it's
14th July 2004, 11:07 PM
True...but hvta remember wat the camera see is what's reflected into the lens...so relative to the dog's surroundings...the dog's fur is reflecting less IR compaired to the surrounding leaves/grass...therefore appears darker than its surroundings...
Originally Posted by zodnm
at least tats what I understand...
15th July 2004, 12:26 AM
Check this out for DSLR IR photography -> www.irdigital.net
Not sure if it's a permanent change to your DSLR though.
15th July 2004, 12:47 AM
The fur is doing its job....
The fur retains heat, so little is emanated as IR. A Polar Bear is the epitome of that. Near zero IR emissions from its body, just a white dot from its nose. (Check it out!)
Originally Posted by zodnm
Hairless animals (humans) shed the fur to better moderate body temp. So skin is a good IR emitter.
15th July 2004, 01:52 AM
Well, more correctly, we are taking Near IR pics. So the dog does not radiate Near IR. The type of radiant heat from bodies is more than 1000nm.
Infra red photography a bit leh che, need to bring at least a monopod. And it's hot as you do need sunlight.
15th July 2004, 08:58 AM
Last edited by teerex; 15th July 2004 at 09:10 AM.
15th July 2004, 01:13 PM
There seem to be a misconception here by a couple of members on IR. As per my understanding InfraRed is dependant on the light spectrum.
The IR filter allows a certain spectrum of light thru' and has nothing to do with heat or body temperature.
Imaging, either on still or video which is dependant of body temperature is "Thermal Imaging". Thus IR photography has nothing to do with body temperature.
The dog in the picture is black is because the W/B set does not warrant for black to appear as white.
W/B is a very important factor is IR photography. It is the preset W/B that makes certain things in a image to appear as white.
No offence, but the above is per my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
15th July 2004, 01:59 PM
yes, it was my misunderstanding. i confused ir with thermal imaging.
19th July 2004, 09:05 AM
thank you all.. for all those who gave advise.
will be testing a Hoya R72 soon.